חולין קכח

Okay, daf kuf khuf khuf khus, we're starting from the bottom of kuf khuf khuf zain

on the base.

So we said in the mixture there by the case of the aever or basser, Hamid Duhl Duhl

by the heim, or so it was hanging off.

So we already discussed that it had this dual personality that in terms of Thomas Eichlin

it could become Tameh if a shayat touched it if it was muck shur, but it does not have

its own Tameh, it is not considered an aeva, because an aeva is only key heeple.

So therefore for it to become Tameh it has to become muck shur, the makabal Tameh.

So the mixture said the second case would then be if you then go ahead and check that

animal with the aever on the Duhl on it.

So the mayor had said, again, where as we had said, shrita aein oeisan neeple so the shrita

helps to prevent that aeva from becoming aena veila, but just like normally when you check

that animal, the dam of the shrita is mach shur, the animal to be makabaltumma, that dam

counts as a liquid, to be mach shur, the animal makabaltumma.

So once you're also when the dam gets on to the animal, it's from the shrita, it's also

going to be mach shur, this aever, a madoldul, this aever to be able to become Tameh if

a shayat touched it.

That was shita's or mayor.

When the shiiming, I'm a lawyer, shiiming said, no, that the dam of the shiit in this

case is not going to be mach shur, the aever a madoldul, the aever madoldul requires its

own hechshur.

What's the mach likeus?

So the gomar says now, that aligns up, the micrometh of the what's the mach likeus

aever and a shiming, so what is going to bring six different shyat and what the mach likeus

aever and a shiming is.

I'm a rabbi, rabbi is a shyat is.

But the hema nas is yadla eever kamifiki, we're talking over here about a case, with

the dam of the shiit that does not get on to the aever madoldul, it does not get on to

the, to the piece that's hanging off, it only touches the beaiming.

Now normally, if you want to be mach shur something to makabaltumma, the whole animal

does not, the dead animal, the whole thing, the whole fruit, whatever it is you're talking

about, there wants to be mach abultumma, does not have to get wet, right?

It's only a part of it gets wet, that's good enough.

So the question is, in this case is the aever madoldul part of the animal.

So rabbi says, the beaiming nas is yadla eever, so in this case the dam got on to the beaiming,

it did not get on to the aever madoldul.

Do we consider the beaiming to be a yad, an extension of the aever, right?

Normally you would say the aever would be an extension of the beaiming.

In this case, the beaiming would have to act as the extension of the aever.

So do we say that this beaiming is an extension of the aever enough, marisura eena beaiming nas

is yadla eever, did not?

The beaiming is not a yad favor, assuming that you can be mach shur something by getting

the dam or the liquid onto the yad of it, which was my phlecos and we'll talk about that

in a few minutes, but assuming you could be mach shur something, let's say you have an

apple.

You don't have to be mach shur the whole apple, even if part of the apple gets wet, that's

good enough.

And we had a sheet that said, even if the yad of the apple is a stem or something of

the apple gets wet, that's also good enough.

The question in our case is, do we consider the beaiming to be a yad for the aever?

So if shim and says, no, the beaiming is not a yad for the aever and if the beaiming is

not a yad for the aever, no dam got to the aever.

And therefore it's not much to look out of.

The marisura eeve beaiming nas is yadla eever.

Remairs says, no, the beaiming is an extension in this case.

The beaiming is an extension of the aever.

If the beaiming becomes mach shur, that is also going to be as if the yad of the aever

became mach shur and it's going to be mach shur on the cobblestone.

So that's the first shot in the mach like is, is the beaiming considered a yad for the aever.

A biamar.

A biamar says, no, the beaiming is not a yad for the aever.

The beaiming is the big part.

The aever is a small part.

The beaiming is not a yad for the aever, but that's not the issue.

Who says, just like we said, that the aever has a dual personality and in some aspect is considered part of the beaiming,

that the shri' of the beaiming prevents the aever from becoming an aeva, so maybe the aever and the beaiming are considered one unit for a hillchess.

Aeksher.

Now what would define that?

In other words, there's an interesting hagdaar.

Aeksh kutton.

Then godhul eile imaikimithithi.

Normally if you want to define if two things are physically one item.

So we would say if you pull part a, does part b come along?

And if you pull part b, does part a come along?

If it's symmetrical, so then in a khanami, they're both considered one unit.

Here you have an interesting situation.

If you pull the beaiming, the yad will come along.

But if you pull the yad, it's just going to rip off.

The yad is just a small little piece. It's not nearly the weight of the beaiming.

If you pull this aever, it's just going to rip off.

It's not going to pull the beaiming with it.

So aeksh kutton, if you would pull the aever, which is the small part, aeimgadol eile imaikimithi.

And that makes them considered one unit for me.

Marsever aeksh kutton, if you would pull the small piece, then godhul eile imaikimithi.

If you pull the small piece, the big piece will not come along.

But since if you pull the big piece, the small piece would come along.

We consider it one unit.

And if it's considered one unit, then if the beaiming was vukhsir, then automatically the aevers going to be vukhsir too.

The Marsever of shimans says no, ae no kumayu.

And has to be symmetrical. Has to be that you could pull in both directions.

Otherwise we consider them two units.

The hechha's hakshir, the different easus of shimans, even if the beaiming became vukhsir.

That does not affect the ability, the aever being vukhsir.

The aever beaichan on suffer, beaichan also holds a datzum issu and our mishal like a baya.

How do you know that?

Baekes kutton, if you inga godhul eile imaikimithi.

You're beaichan rami de mer, de mer, beaichan on say lechaya, we have a steer from a mer, from our mishnah,

to another halaka we have in a brice.

Why?

Mirma mer, aeksh pakutton, if you inga godhul eilima, ae yukumayu, says a beaichan on the chaya, the pshatre mer, our mishnah is.

That we consider the beaiming and the aever to be one unit, even though if you pull the aever, you're not going to get the beaiming with you,

because it's going to rip off, still we can send them one unit.

Hakurmeh, say such a thing, veraminu, nivabraisha.

Ayikha, if we're talking about shumah, shenifras, if you have a piece of shumah,

and the piece of shumah breaks into small pieces, umwu, uru rmiksas, but part of the attach, so I'd say you have a,

I don't know, a giant apple or a watermelon of shumah, or a bunan even, a la maschanah, and it's broken, but it's still attached a little bit.

Okay, and a tfool yoyim, who was metame shumah, and would make the shumah, tamay shlishi, comes along and touches one part of that broken watermelon.

Sir Meirah, Mirma, sir Meirah, says, im aeksh pakutton, vergodhul eilimae yukumayu.

Here he says it has to be symmetrical.

He says if you have a small piece of watermelon, and a large piece of watermelon, and if you would pull a large piece, the small piece would come along,

but if you would pull the small piece, the large piece won't come along, it'll just rip them off, so it depends.

If you pull the small piece, the large piece comes, then vergodhul eilimae yukumayu.

So you see what Mirma says, we're a strainer, man.

If you would pull the small piece, then the large piece will not come, then we consider it one unit or not.

Here he says we dokens, we, here he says, it is only considered one unit if you would pull it together.

If not not, so he's make ill over here, and he says that if the two young touches it, we would not necessarily consider it to be one unit.

Whereas in our ministry, he considers it to be one unit.

Now from the factor, we have an eskasha, clearly we have a bill here and it's held at that shat in the mayor, and our mission is good.

He says, more of our bill here, what's the answer to this theorem?

We have a mochlef is a shika.

Now normally when we say mochlef is a shika in shas, then normally means that we have a gear set on the price that it's won, and we switch the two ta'naim's approach to the thing.

Normally it's like we're married, we switch the, that which we're married, said we would have said, that we would have said we're married, said so there's no steer.

Rashi interestingly enough, we did not say that shat.

Rashi over here says that even though we're married, our mission is set.

Then it's going to be, as we said, that cut in, that if you can pull the cut in, and the gull of does not come, is considered one unit in our mission.

So over here he's going to say not.

So it's not mochlef is a shika, they switch, who said what?

It's mochlef is a shika, and mayor changed his opinion.

Now, it doesn't mean he changed his opinion totally, Rashi says.

Means in this case he's going to be more mechal.

Why? I think we're going to give a reason why we think he's going to be more mechal.

But then for mechal said it's not a steer.

Over here he's going to be more mechal.

For some of my kusha, Duma Shani, the mayor of Entfulya, I'm the Shai Tumas.

Maybe over here Entfulya is more mechal.

Rashi says, Tumas do a bummer, which is not so clear where Rashi got that from.

But either way, Tumas definitely more mechal than Mo Tumas.

And therefore we hear a mayor is going to be mechal and say they're not considered one unit.

Whereas an armistice considers that one unit.

Now the way I explained Rashi, because that's a shika, it sounds like that is exactly what the ternets was before.

There are shash points, that's that.

According to Rashi's learning, that's not really clear what this question is,

because that seems to be what the answer already said was.

But be that as it may, says there's no problem.

Tanya, because we have a price that Rabi, I may, are effortful.

You may have a shai Tumas.

Rabi said there's shite of remayer.

That if they cannot pull the cotton and the gullal comes with it,

both by Tulliom, which is mechal and by shai Tumas, then we can consider it separate.

So clearly, Rabi holds like this.

Some of them are the demotivate of the rebulation, and they're the remayer of shani.

So why is that exterior remayer?

Mayor of Mechal between Fulya and other Tumas.

Tulliom is more mechal, but Rabi's not.

It's the mama of Aish, Shai, and Akrami.

Haka rebehram, the divi rebe mochleb is a shita.

So if you're going to say that Rabi holds a remayer in our mission,

then you're going to have to say that Tulliom is going to be slightly different

than other Tumas Tulliom, it would be more mechal, but other things necessarily not.

Again, Rabi himself, I'd be old, not like that.

But the way Rabi says that in remayer, you're going to have to say it that...

Okay, so that is the explanation of Rabi and the explanation of Abai.

Now we get to Rava, Rava.

You know what the machleb is a mute and the remayer in the mission is?

Be ye, she out the Tumas, and yad the heksha, comethically.

We had this machleb, way back in the beginning of the paragraph,

and that's co-fewed, chastrashi brings, that we learned that there's a din of Yad for Tulliom.

And then we had a machleb, do we extend that a lach and make a Yad for heksha?

Then if you're maksha in the Yad, that's also going to be maksha,

the Iker-Kli-Pri itself, or the Kli itself.

We had a discussion about that Kli, but a Pri itself.

Does the idea of Yad is extend to heksha?

Now as a machleb, we discuss whether we consider Yad is to be part of the Tumas,

whether we consider heksha, whether we consider heksha,

whether we consider heksha to be just a preparatory stage.

So Maksha of the Yad Shada Tumas, a Yad the heksha,

and therefore just because the animal became moksha with blood,

does not affect the heksha-ness, the word, of the Abrahamadodl.

Maksha of the Yad Shada Tumas, a Yad Shada Tumas,

a Yad Shada, therefore wants the Behema and the Yad,

and the Avar consider Yad, the Ichanami,

then the heksha on the Behema also works for the Avar.

Let's put it on number three.

Put it on number four of Papa Amar.

The heksha, Kli, the maksha of the Kli,

the fascinating question, which is what happens in a situation

where something is not considered a certain Iker-like in our case.

But you need to be, have a maksha on it to turn it into an Iker.

So if you have maksha on it to turn it into an Iker,

so then we say it becomes a laikha, and now you have to be maksha

to become a tumour, it has to become wet.

Whatever became wet before you had that maksha on it,

it became wet when it was a non-euchel status.

This is not a tributary of this sanya.

I remember you there, can't I remember you keep a shayn,

I remember you keep it the following al-okha.

They live shuta beqfar, if you have these fats,

that generally speaking in the kfarim,

they don't go ahead and eat them.

Rasha says it because they don't eat,

they need to eat them, they have enough meat,

or because they are necessarily poor people,

and poor people don't have the right tool, I guess,

or spices, maybe to prepare them.

So whatever it is, in this particular kfar,

they don't normally eat ghele.

And now you go ahead and you say,

I'm going to eat the ghele, I'm going to use the ghele,

if it's food, I'm going to eat it.

So it's a maksha on it.

You have to be maksha on it to make it a doer al-okha.

And when normally ghele is not good to their food,

it's not makha but tumour.

You decide you want to use it as food.

Now it's makha but tumour.

Weinz our keksher, shiqf our hoksher beshghi te al.

So now you go ahead, if you shiqf an animal,

so then we know the animal you shiqf,

it gets maksha.

The ghele of it, that stage, was not a food yet.

Then you change your mind, you say,

you're going to eat the ghele,

kosher ghele, maksha for ghele,

whatever it is.

Then the heksh you did counts.

Weinz our keksh is maksha beshghi te.

I'm out of the fun of.

I said to that is what it would be you to say.

I'm out of the fun of.

The makha tumour, Avainu, we learned all shinsha laktu.

If you pick these crops which are normally animal food,

Najuman food, ve dighan, and now you wash them

when they were still only considered animal food, the behemoth.

Weinz our keksh, and then you went,

hey, and you saw you want to eat it.

So it's weinz our keksh, you have to be maksha and shiqf,

and then you have to be maksha and shiqf and then you have to be maksha and shiqf.

Because the heksh you did when it was not considered human food,

does not count.

The ghezh are bekeevili, a shiqf can be eaten,

and a bekeev was chheiser,

and he took a hell, like her, beehud.

So therefore we have a makhhaikis here,

between the original pshak and the final pshak.

My suburb can make a cover, my suburb kekhazh,

do we hold that a heksh,

that you did before was considered euchel counts or not?

And that's maybe the makhhaikis,

I'm here in Imshimin and our Mishra.

So over here you went ahead,

you have this euchel which is not considered euchel.

And you then sheched the mother which was maksha,

even the euchel but you didn't yet decide you were going to eat it.

Well the ghezh was getting eaten in this case obviously.

So then you decide to give it to a ghezh,

but it was makhha before you decided.

So Mary says that's okay,

that's still considered euchel.

And Imshimin says no,

you have to be makhhaikis again,

the heksh, the shrita before was considered euchel,

it doesn't count.

Revakhabrdu-arikam,

or fifth pshat,

Amar, bis-kaneh,

hadam, been similar to siman,

can we feel the, remember,

what's being makhhaikis,

the animal to be a kabbal tumma,

what's being makhhaikis,

the animal over here,

is the damshrita.

It's being makhhaikis,

the damshrita.

Okay, so what happens if you see the shrita,

and if you squirt the dam,

and then you start shacking,

and the damshrita,

and then only after you,

the damshrita,

then you finish the shrita.

So it's not really a question of every mododol or not.

But in Skadeh,

hadam in siman,

the siman,

came in from here.

Ma'aysa,

shrita,

but trilat,

as we discussed earlier in the msakhta,

shrita is a process

from the moment you start cutting

to the moment you finish cutting,

it's one process of shrita,

and then for this is damshrita,

in this case we're assuming

that the damshrita is squirted on the avert.

So it's not really makhhaikis,

and avert at all.

It's just a question of,

do we consider this damshrita,

because it came out before the shrita was finished?

Okay, so the haidam shrita.

Ma'aysa,

and shrita,

shrita is only at the end.

And therefore it's only the dam that comes out

after the shrita is finished.

That would be considered dam.

Dam that comes out before the shrita is finished,

it's not called damanefish.

That's called damaguf,

damaghalal,

and that's not maksha,

but the kabbal tumma,

the haidam maku, dammaqa,

and therefore the makhhaikis

really nothing to do with avert from a dobel.

It's just dam an issue,

and we consider this by an animal

would it be an issue,

because after you finish shrita,

shrita shrita,

the dam would still be there.

But by this haidam,

maybe the blood squirted on,

and then you wiped off the dam,

remember if you left the dam there,

and you finished the shrita,

then once you finished the shrita,

that dam comes.

But here you wiped it off,

being sim in the sim in,

so if it's not there at the end of the shrita,

does it count?

And that's the makhhaikis,

and then the makhhaikis will be mayor and im sure.

Revashiyah,

Revashiyah,

is a much simpler answer.

Beshkite makshir,

it's a way down the community,

we have a makhhaikis im sure,

and another another,

and they're coming.

What about shrita's makshir?

Do we say it's just a dam,

dam is a liquid,

so if it gets out from the shrita,

it's makshir,

or im sure it's a no.

It's the maisush shrita,

that's makshir.

Just like the maisush shrita

makes it muttubakilah,

so the maisush shrita is makshir,

it automatically kabbal tumma,

even without dam.

Oh!

Right? The aim is not muttubakilah now.

If the maisush shrita does make it muttubakilah,

so it's not makshir,

it's makshir,

then you have to get away with some hell.

That's what shrita is like.

Whereas a mayor says no.

A mayor says what's makshir,

it's not the maisush shrita,

it's the dam of the shrita,

and the dam of the shrita,

got on the animal,

got on the neighbor,

and therefore it's going to be makshir,

it's makshir,

and the dam,

even if the maisush shrita itself

is not makshir,

so we have 60 from shrita,

and the maikhleikis are mayor,

and im sure,

they're not.

So, Rabah-e-S, the shailah,

in the maikhleikis we had before,

Rabah-e-S,

explained the maikhleikis was the ashi-yad,

la eva-r-nats,

can the behema be a yad for the eva?

So, if the behema got dam on it,

does that count for the yad for the eva?

So, bairabah, behema-chayyad,

maushush shrita siyad la eva?

What about the following case?

What about if you have a live animal

with an eva-madultal?

Now, the live animal,

there's also shrita,

is makshir, an animal,

tubak-abatumah,

an animal's dhamma-kabatumah.

But, if you tell me that,

that once you shift the animal,

the dam that comes on it,

is also makshir, the eva-r,

one of the animals alive,

and you get liquid on the animal,

but not on the yad,

or not on the eva.

Does that makshir,

the eva-lamakabatumah,

can the heksher work,

via the behema,

even when the behema itself,

the heksher was irrelevant.

Can the,

yet, the liquid that you got on the behema,

does not affect the behema at all,

but since we're treating the behema

as a yad for the eva-r,

maybe that liquid can be makshir,

the eva-r, via the behema.

Meaning, we look at the behema,

it's just an expansion of the eva-r.

The fact that the behema itself doesn't get

makshir, the eva-r,

is not open.

So, how do we look at that?

See, is rabbi rabbi-hema,

mageya mashir dasya,

laver, take.

Amarabbi,

I said, well, once you're seeing that,

I said, I have a number of different

permutations of that same chaila, for instance.

Hariyamu,

quesu, shenata, but utsis.

If you plant a vegetable,

in a flower pot,

it's out of hole in it.

So, we can't do it out of hole in it,

so it's considered not attached to the ground.

And if it's not attached to the ground,

even though it's dirt in the flower pot,

but it's not attached to the real ground,

that thing is not considered a humalic arca,

and therefore, the plant itself

with fruits growing on it,

a camimacabal tumma,

because it's not considered attached to the ground.

The g'dilaw, and now it grows.

The yad sa-kutsu,

it's an outsis,

and now part of it grows out

over the age of the yad sa-kutsu,

over the ground, mamesh,

since that part is now considered attached to the ground.

Anything over the airspace of the ground,

real ground,

is considered attached to the ground.

The entire plant is now considered attached to the ground.

It's not a humal tumma.

Armasha-nansimha says,

one not true.

The khmati-vil-atar,

why should the whole plant be tar?

Al-at-tum-ay-bi-tum-as-iv-at-tum-tar-a-said.

The part of the plant

into the flower pot,

is that it's not out of hole in it.

It's tar,

it's tumming in.

It can be maka-bultumma,

because it's not attached to the ground.

The part of the plant that's over the age of the lip of it,

over the real ground,

is going to be considered a humal akharka.

So, half the plant is a humal akharka.

Half the plant is not a humal akharka.

Fascinating situation.

And on that,

boyabaya, same show,

Mao-jitase-yad-hame-tah.

So, if now you have tummo,

which touches the part of the plant that's over the land,

that plant, part of the plant,

does not become tumming.

Where it could be a yad

to transfer tummo to the part of the plant in the yad sa-kutsu,

can it just be an extension?

Even though in itself is not maka-bultumma,

maybe it could bring tummo to the part of the plant that's in the yad sa-kutsu,

which is able to be maka-bultumma.

Same show, take a mirror,

give me a sense of the other case.

Okay, I'm a mishdaka-bila-chatsi-glas-asura.

So, if you have a giant gourd,

and you decide that the right side of that gourd is an abedizara,

and you bow down to it as an abedizara.

Not attached to the ground,

but you're not bowing down to the whole thing,

you're only bowing down to half of it.

So, now,

rashes is too much of a shot to them in the shadow.

First shot, version of the shadow,

is that since that half now is a surba-na-a,

and things that are a surba-na-a,

are not considered a food at all,

and are not maka-bultumma,

so the same shadow.

If it touches,

parts of the yad sa-kutsu,

they cannot convey tummo to its second half.

Voy a vivio,

Maus-itasiyada-chaverto,

can the part that isn't unable to be maka-bultumma

because it's a surba-na-a,

be a conduit for tummo to the second half.

That's the first way rashes the shadow.

The secondary rashes the shadow is,

is that we know things which are of a deserar,

are tummy themselves.

They have a dintumma.

Rashes in the first press says,

there are bottom,

fine, and they're for rashes ignores it in the first shot.

But the second shot,

the shadow is for that itself.

So you have this piece of a deserar,

which is tummy,

and it has a deli-like a shirt.

Okay, there are bottom.

And the shirt is the second half,

going to be a yad for it.

So it will be a yad for a deserar.

Or do we say,

that since that second half was not moks-it-umma at all,

so it does not become a conduit for the emor-na-a-zareps.

Either way, we're in the same shaila,

of something which is able to be moks-it-umma,

can you have a yad for it for something

which is not moks-it-umma.

Another version of this shaila,

we're off-papa.

Here I'm a ye-chor-shel-tain-shel-nish-bash-inif-shach.

So you give a branch of it to anit-tree,

that broke off.

And we're romically pussed.

But it's not totally broken off.

Let's say the outside bark of it is still attached,

but you see that the branch is really dislocated from the tree.

So be huda-metai.

View this says,

since it's still attached to the tree,

it's considered a bucho-bulakarka.

It's not pukam-tama.

Oh, chama-remem.

In yachola-chaya-stor,

if it's still nourishing from the tree,

then it's part of the tree.

Vim-la-v-tama, then it's not its tummy.

Oh, so now you have something attached to the tree

according to the chama,

that part of it is tummy, part of it is not.

The part of the ground obviously is mukobulakarka-stor.

The part of the branch that's mostly broken off,

we're going to say, could be kum-tama.

It's a buyer of pukam.

Maushiyasi-yad-l-gha-veri.

So, Maushiyasi-yad-l-gha-veri has two four ways of asking the chama.

The second version is a little bit easier.

Maushiyasi-yad-l-gha-s says,

can a tree which is mukobulakarka,

which is now sort of attached to this branch,

to the branch, could be mukobulakarka-stor.

So, can a tree which is mukobulakarka,

be a Yad for the branch,

or, Maushiyasi-yad-l-gha-s says,

maybe, in case we have a branch coming off the branch,

and therefore, one of them is able to be mukobulakarka-stor.

One of them is not.

Can one branch be mukobulakarka-stor.

A Yad for the other branch,

Shaila, all these Shaila are the exact same Shaila,

which is, can something that's not able to be mukobulakarka-stor.

Be a Yad for something which could be mukobulakarka-stor.

Another version, a Mervisera.

Very unru.

Aemansha-bizab-azoo-kishu-chalat-tsis-kula.

So, if you have a house, two houses,

that are attached.

Attached.

And you have a stone that's obviously facing one side of the house,

a roofing house, and shaman's house,

one stone in a wall.

That stone gets so rass.

The first thing you do is take the whole stone,

okay, so you take the stone out.

You put a new stone in.

And again, that sara's comes back.

Okushu-nait-deads.

Now, when you say you have to break down that house,

you don't, let's say it's a roofing house where you see that sara's.

So, even though the first stage,

you took the whole stone out even from Shaman's house.

That's not the bitable.

Now, you put a new stone in it gets sara's again,

but look as if the break down roofing house.

Because you knight it, knight it is Shaila,

and you have to break down the roofing side of that rock.

Shaman's side of the rock is the opposite.

Now, the problem is that an Evan and Rugas,

a rock with sara's on it, is the Tamaboyah.

So, is the side of the rock that's on Shaman's house,

also considered a Yand for something that's metame,

and therefore Shaman's house will come to me too.

But it was there, Mao Shitasiya the Chavarta.

So, again, the same thing here.

Shaman's side rock is not metame.

Ruvans is, but Shaman's is an extension of Ruvans.

How to look at all these shows and exact same type of show.

Good evening, I'm shot in the mission.

We said in the mission that if the Behima dies naturally not through Shreeta,

so we said the bosser is not Toma Toma Tumasavela,

but it could become Toma from something else.

The Avers metame, Shaman Averma Na Khai,

but it's not the time we should be in the veil.

We said that Shreeta is a nipple,

and therefore it's as if the piece of the Aver got separated.

One second before the, before the dot,

that miso, so to the pump side,

it's as if it got separated one second before it died,

and therefore this Aver is considered Averma Na Khai,

it's not considered a veil, but once the animal's dead,

it's that the Aver was considered Keelu separated.

So now we have an Aver.

And we're debating whether the Aver is Tumasavela,

is it Averma Na Khai, or it's Tumasavela?

What's the difference?

It's Tumas.

Who cares if it's Tumasavela, or it's Tumasavela?

It says the more Ma'ika,

then Averma Na Khai, the Aver should not be.

That's the economic.

It's Bussar-Aparish-Himandu.

What if from this Aver a little piece of meat comes off,

let's say the size of a bait-sa, meaning?

The Aver behemble, the evil Bussar-Aparish-Himand,

Averma Na Khai, the Amitama.

Averma Na Khai, as we'll prove from a plastic in a second,

is only Tumasavela when it's a full Aver.

It's a full Aver.

We'll see what the definition of Aver is,

but it's only it's an Aver.

If part of that Aver comes off,

the meat is no longer Tumasavela.

Only the meat that came off is no Tumas,

because it's not an Aver anymore.

Whereas if it's Bussar-Aparish-Himandu,

then Averma Na Khai,

but Na Vela is not a Tumasavela,

then Averma Na Khai,

because all the meat of Na Vela is Tumasavela.

So even if a piece comes off,

that piece is still Na Vela.

So it makes a very big difference in our Mishnah,

whether this Aver, a Madoldo,

after the animal dies is Averma Na Khai,

or Averma Na Vela.

If it's Averma Na Khai,

then it's only going to be Tumasavela,

if it's Averma Na Khai,

then it's only going to be Tumasavela,

while it's still an Aver.

It says the Mishnah, it's going to be Tumasavela,

because we could say that Misha Ausah

is a Nipul,

and it's a different separated before the animal,

animal became an Aver.

How do we know these halakas?

Say, Averma Na Khai,

and the Tumasavela,

so Naveela, the Pusik says,

the Naveela is Tumasavela.

How do you know Averma Na Khai,

if it comes off,

or the animal is alive,

then that's also Tumasavela.

I'm a view, I'm a view, I'm a view,

and I'm a view, I'm a view,

and the Pusik says,

Vikkyomus Minabehimah,

and the Aakulah,

and the Gamelalasi, it's one of ours.

What do you mean, if the Aamus Minabehimah?

If the Aamus Minabehimah,

what's Minabehimah?

So, the Aamus Minabehimah means,

even if it comes off,

it's alive, and Aver is going to be Tumasavela.

How do you know it doesn't apply to Bossaavela?

Hold on,

but at least we see that something that comes off,

Minabehimah,

is going to have a DIN-LIKE-LIKE-Naveela.

I'm a Bada da Ki,

after the Qidaf,

we need that treasure for a different treasure.

Then we view them Arab,

then we view them Arab,

then we view the Arab,

they make this payment with Tumasavela,

you can have an animal

that has a schieta, of course it's not Tumasavela.

Some animals with a schieta does not work.

The animal is a Tumasavela,

some animals with a schieta does not work,

the animal is not Tumasavela.

We do hear it,

note the story in the male sector,

there is a Zood Traffitsa,

if the animal dies,

without a schieta,

so it has Tumasavela.

If it has a Cusha schieta,

but it has a hole in the lunga,

whatever it is,

then it's not Tumasavela.

And that's what we learn from Minabehimah,

only some not ended up glad animals are going to be Tumasavela.

So when you write we have two Joshua's.

Im kayin lihti raqmanin mehabehima.

My minhabehima two words.

Shwami na'atari ti, then a trafer does become tummy.

And avermanachai does become tummy.

Yahu kiya fi albasa naami.

So if that's the case that avermanachai is like an avela,

so bassermanachai should also be like an avela.

So mala isaqadata.

There can be from another bresad this anya.

Yahu kiya basser bassermanachai tummy.

You would think just meat, not a full aver.

You would think just meat is also tummy.

Tamalamehabehima minhabehima.

What does that teach me?

Mamisah aiyanah isaqa liepin.

When something's dead, it doesn't become back alive.

Afkosh aiyanah isaqa liepin.

Dimari aiyar bi-aisee, Rasieh glee lii.

Rasieh gleei says also the only thing which becomes tummy

is something which cannot regenerate.

An avermanachai comes off does not regenerate.

Whereas a little piece of meat that comes off,

it will grow back on the animal.

And for meat when it comes off alive animal does not become tummy.

Where aaaah it's also the eat of course what's that tummy.

Where's an avermanachai does.

That's what we're saying gleei.

You'd be a key farmer, a different way of unstaying the dhrasha.

Behama that has to be what's tummy.

Something that's like an anama.

Right?

We're basically saying the criteria doesn't regenerate.

We keep it as a different criteria.

Namahama is made up of gidimat samas.

The behama is made up of bones and of gidimat samas.

Of cold gidimat samas.

To be considered tummy has to be an aver which has in it

bones and it has in it tendons.

Rebi, I'm a rebi, so the third criteria.

Behama has to be like an anama.

Namahama bussard gidimat samas.

So behama is made up of meat and bones and tendons nerves.

Of cold bussard gidimat samas.

What are these three different sheet?

This is the more explained.

My ekeb and rebi are be a keva.

They both say that has to be like an anama.

Rebi keva says gidimat samas.

Rebi says bussard gidimat samas.

Ekeb and Ayu are kufa.

What about the bottom part of the leg near the hoof?

So over there there's no meat.

It just bones and tendons.

So is that considered an aver to be metamma?

See if you like your beehives just being bones and tendons and it's an aver.

According to Rebi you need to have meat.

That part of the foot doesn't have meat.

It would not be ever metakaya.

What's the need of course?

But it would not be considered tummy for ever metakaya.

What's the need to be keva, the recik, the maybanayu?

Ekeb and Ayu are a papa koolia, the kidneys, the nibs for time in the lips.

Because those have meat.

They have meat.

But they don't have any teeth in it.

And there are already some of the bones there.

So according to basically the...

They're basically...

They won't regenerate.

The koolia will not regenerate.

And the lips will not regenerate.

And therefore they will be considered an aver.

But according to Rebi akiva, according to Rebi they need to have bones and gidim.

These items don't have bones and gidim.

They won't be considered an aver.

Ekeb and Ayu, time to the ayahu.

You see the same thing as shwatsum.

Shwatsum is the same aloha of aver metakaya.

Kiagamlis says,

Yoho bostra per shwatsum yyatame,

that of a little piece of meat comes off of sherats.

It'll be tame.

Tamellama bimmoisum,

only things which are like misa.

Say, machlekas.

Ma misa shenah isichal.

And of course you're encyclicaly, but you're very encyclicaly.

Basically, here's the same thing.

And that's something which does not regenerate is considered an aver.

They're making a key besides the same point.

Sherats.

Ma sherats gidim atsum is the normal sherats is made above bones and tendons.

I've called gidim atsum.

And Rebi, I'm the same thing.

Sherats.

Ma sherats bostra gidim atsum is.

I've called bostra gidim atsum.

And exactsum is like,

the more we bring the same to naphgaminis.

They may be in the kimi kimi naimah or koova.

If you have the bottom part of the foot which does not have meat.

And they're like,

they say, gidim, naimah, naimah, naimah,

and puhmah kooi bim iswa time.

The kidneys or the lips which don't regenerate,

ekeminah.

But shwichah,

why do we have to have the same exact brisa

by an animal and by a sherats?

I'll tell you what.

The ashbina behimmoa for all he had this by name,

a hinnatama,

de laimatama mikhayim ishim de laimatama qadasha.

We would say that meat of an animal is more make-o,

because meat of an animal is all imatama evatsik,

because it's size of a kzayis or a conveytum or size of a kibbatsa.

Whereas we know by a sherats with tamay,

even by qadasha, a small or a mouth.

So maybe we're makhmiir by a sherats and make-o by an animal.

Although sherats with tamakadasha,

eimatatama mikhayim,

maybe even the meat of imatama evats bostra gidim a khayim.

The ashbina in sherats we shem de laimatama masa.

Sherats is more make on the outside.

Sherats doesn't have tamas masa.

Whereas by an avay,

it's metami not just maga,

but ima masa when you carry.

Laimatama keim,

om behimm de metami masa,

imatama keim.

So Tvik, we have to teach you that both by sherats and by mahimma,

aver manachai is tamay with.

Mahkhoi is what exactly the definition of avay is.

But bussar manachai,

a piece that comes off,

of course, is also deep,

it's at the beddouble,

but it's not going to have a deen of tamo.

Unkem.